Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38214722›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Analysis of neural networks for routine classification of sixteen ultrasound upper abdominal cross sections.

Alistair Lawley, Rory Hampson, Kevin Worrall, Gordon Dobie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alistair LawleyFaculty Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. alistair.lawley@strath.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0903-1116
Rory HampsonFaculty Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Kevin WorrallFaculty of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Gordon DobieFaculty Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 2296317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAbdominal ultrasound screening requires the capture of multiple standardized plane views as per clinical guidelines. Currently, the extent of adherence to such guidelines is dependent entirely on the skills of the sonographer. The use of neural network classification has the potential to better standardize captured plane views and streamline plane capture reducing the time burden on operators by combatting operator variability.

methodsA dataset consisting of 16 routine upper abdominal ultrasound scans from 64 patients was used to test the classification accuracy of 9 neural networks. These networks were tested on both a small, idealised subset of 800 samples as well as full video sweeps of the region of interest using stratified sampling and transfer learning.

resultsThe highest validation accuracy attained by both GoogLeNet and InceptionV3 is 83.9% using transfer learning and the large sample set of 26,294 images. A top-2 accuracy of 95.1% was achieved using InceptionV3. Alexnet attained the highest accuracy of 79.5% (top-2 of 91.5%) for the smaller sample set of 800 images. The neural networks evaluated during this study were also successfully able to identify problematic individual cross sections such as between kidneys, with right and left kidney being accurately identified 78.6% and 89.7%, respectively.

conclusionDataset size proved a more important factor in determining accuracy than network selection with more complex neural networks providing higher accuracy as dataset size increases and simpler linear neural networks providing better results where the dataset is small.

Indexed as

AbdomenNeural Networks, ComputerHumansKidneyUltrasonographyAbdominal screeningClassificationMachine learningUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID38214722
PMCPMC10830611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.